Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR670; 1999CriLJ2194
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Mr. Bagaria for the petitioner-original accused, Dr. Chandrachud for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Tahilramani for respondent No. 3.2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Order dated 2nd February 1999, passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I., Greater Mumbai in Misc. Application No. 70 of 1999 for closure of prosecution evidence in Special Case No. 6 of 1989. Under the impugned Order, the learned Special Judge (Shri S.R. Mehra) has followed his earlier Order dated 2nd February 1999 in Misc. Application Nos. 1128 of 1998, 25 of 1999 and 26 of 1999 in Case No. 54 of 1988 and has rejected the prayer for closure of the prosecution case and/or acquittal of the petitioner. The prayer was made only on the ground that the charge for the offence punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was framed against the petitioner on 5t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC524
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision dated 19-12-1994 made in Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ-270/SRT/94 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming order of the Assistant Collector denying the benefit of the exemption Notification 122/86.2. The assessee to engaged in the manufacture of P. or P. medicines - falling under chapter Heading 3003.00 and was doing a job work of M/s.DWD Pharmaceuticals and IPCO Laboratories. In the classification list one of the inputs shown was 'gentamycine' as against gentamycine sulphate. The Notification 122/86 exempts gentamycine and not 'gentamycine sulphate'. A show cause notice dated 4-2-1987 was issued denying the exemption. In the show cause notice no period has been mentioned specifically but claimed duty of Rs. 2,48,466/- as differential duty. A reply dated 17-3-1987 was filed by the assessee denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. One of the defences was that the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR409; 2000(1)BomCR133
ORDERS.B. MHASE, J.1. The main question which is raised in this Civil Revision Application by the petitioners is whether the suit simpliciter for injunction is maintainable on the basis of the possession which is acquired by the plaintiff under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, without filing a suit for specific performance of the contract and in such a suit, whether application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is tenable. 2. The facts in brief are as under. Regular Civil Suit No. 632 of 1988 has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon claiming a perpetual injunction as against the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 i.e. defendants in respect of the Survey No. 708/11, which is now part of Gat No. 2311. There were three brothers, namely Kadu, Manga and Onkar. Manga and Onkar are defendants No. 3 and 4. Kadu had expired and Mathurabai and Devidas are respectivel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1999Bom280; 1999(3)ALLMR130; 1999(4)BomCR256
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. This notice of motion is taken out by defendant No. 1 and 4 for vacating the order of arrest dated 28-11-1998 and for permission to the defendant No. 1 to demolish the vessel M.v. 'Irene P' and further directing the plaintiffs to furnish bank guarantee by way of compensation to defendant Nos. 1 and 4.2. I heard Mr. Pratap for the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 and Ms. F. Sethna for the plaintiffs at length in support of the notice of motion and in opposition thereto respectively.3. It was contended by Mr. Pratap that the notice of motion was liable to be allowed and the order of arrest of ship was liable to be vacated for the following reasons:For suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs, for seeking Judge's order without incorporating therein the condition regarding giving of undertaking to give security as is required by Rule 941 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, for not filing affidavit in support of the Judge's order, for filing a fresh suit in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(84)LC172Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision dated 27.1.1994 made in Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ-22/B. 111/94 whereunder for the purpose of the valuation of the product the excise duty paid on input raw material in regard to which Modvat credit availed of was included.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of plain polyethylene films falling under sub-heading 3920.31 of the CETA from the plastic raw maters rials, namely LDPE films and HOPE films falling under sub-heading 3901.10 and 3901.20 on which appropriate excise duty was paid. The appellants opted for Modvat credit as both the raw materials as well as the final product. The said polyethylene films were captively utilised by transferring the films to their printing department. They did not pay the duty on the polyethylene films second time as the films suffered duty already. They filed a price list claiming that normal price was not available under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act but they worked out the norm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR683; 2000(1)BomCR670; (2000)2BOMLR891
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This Court by order dated 20-12-1988, while admitting the Civil Revision Application, has directed that the Civil Revision Application to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 1692 of 1988. In view of this order both these matters are listed together for final hearing. The parties in both the proceedings are same and the subject-matter of immovable property involved is also the same. However, both the proceedings arise in between the parties from the different proceedings, namely, writ petition arises from the proceedings under section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act filed by the respondents against the original landlord in which the petitioners also participated at a later stage and the order for delivery of the possession have been passed in favour of respondents upto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Petition No. MRT/AH-V-3/88, decided on 14th September, 1988 and the said order is under challenge in the writ petition.2. The Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR273; 2000(1)BomCR888; 2000(1)MhLj201
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 24-7-1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna below Exhibit 35 in Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1988 whereby the preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court was decided. The said issue is as follows: 'Whether this Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna) has jurisdiction to try the suit ?'The aforesaid issue has been answered in the affirmative holding that the said Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the Municipal Council, Jalna has preferred this Civil Revision Application. 2. The plaintiffs are residents of Jalna and they claim that they are tax payers of Municipal Council, Jalna. They have filed the suit claiming that the Officers of the Municipal Council are always misusing the powers and disobeying the directions of law every now and then to the extent that the day to day work of the defendant Municipal Council is as good as completely stopped...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999]239ITR312(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the royalty payable to Macfil Ltd., for receiving technical know-how in terms of the agreement dated December 14, 1979, was an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1980-81 when the approval by the Government to make the agreement effective, came into operation had not been received during the relevant accounting year ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1980-81. During the previous year relevant to the above assessment year, the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with Macfil Ltd., Switzerland, for upgrading technology and expanding its range of production. Under the agreement, the assessee was liable to pay Rs. 21,93,987 to Macfi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999CriLJ4338
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15-5-1993 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 143/92, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment lor life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for three months.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased Mahadeo was resident of Ballarshah, District Chandrapur. He was staying in Shiwaji Ward at Ballarshah along with his wife Parvatabai (PW 3). The appellant/accused is also resident of the said ward. His house is situated behind the house of the deceased. It seems that being neighbours the accused and deceased were close to each other. The marriage of the accused was settled by the deceased. The accused suspected that the character of his wife was not good and though the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC245Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are two appeals; one filed by M/s. Western India Dyestuffs Corpn. ('WIDCO' for short), and the other by M/s. Chika Ltd., being aggrieved with the common order-in-original dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. As both these appeals arise out of the common order-in-original and involve common facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of M/s. WIDCO for the benefit of small scale exemption under notification no. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 (as amended) in respect of the pigment dyestuff cleared under the brand name of M/s. Chika Ltd., who were a trader and were not covered by the scheme of small scale exemption. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who adjudicated the matter confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 1,87,016.68. He imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 19,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. WIDCO. A fine of Rs. 50,000/- was also i...
Tag this Judgment!